On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kees Cook <kees.cook at canonical.com> wrote:
> In the continuing effort to avoid kernel addresses leaking to unprivileged
> users, this patch switches to %pK for /proc/dri/*/vma.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees.cook at canonical.com>
> ---
> ?drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c | ? ?9 +++++----
> ?1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c
> index 3cdbaf3..be9a9c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c
> @@ -283,17 +283,18 @@ int drm_vma_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> ?#endif
>
> ? ? ? ?mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> - ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "vma use count: %d, high_memory = %p, 0x%08llx\n",
> + ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "vma use count: %d, high_memory = %pK, 0x%pK\n",
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? atomic_read(&dev->vma_count),
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?high_memory, (u64)virt_to_phys(high_memory));
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?high_memory, (void *)virt_to_phys(high_memory));
>
> ? ? ? ?list_for_each_entry(pt, &dev->vmalist, head) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?vma = pt->vma;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (!vma)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?continue;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?seq_printf(m,
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"\n%5d 0x%08lx-0x%08lx %c%c%c%c%c%c 0x%08lx000",
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pt->pid, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end,
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"\n%5d 0x%pK-0x%pK %c%c%c%c%c%c 0x%08lx000",
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pt->pid,
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(void *)vma->vm_start, (void *)vma->vm_end,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? 'r' : '-',
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? 'w' : '-',
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? 'x' : '-',
> --
> 1.7.2.3

This is a highly reasonable patch. Does 0x%pK show up as 0x0x0 in the
log, or just 0x0? Other than that...

Reviewed-by: Corbin Simpson <MostAwesomeDude at gmail.com>

-- 
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? ~ Keynes

Corbin Simpson
<MostAwesomeDude at gmail.com>

Reply via email to